Night Strike wrote:Why should any upward cost of living adjustment (that are never adjusted down, fyi) for anyone getting money from the government be automatic when those same adjustments aren't automatic for private sector employees, especially in a down economy?

So you don't believe that the US Government should stand by the promises they make to military veterans? That'd make a hell of a recruiting slogan.

It's easy to make a ton of promises based in the future when you know you don't have to be around to carry them out. And like I have said, military veterans should be the only group the federal government should be providing long-term benefits to. I say cut long-term welfare payments so we know there will be enough/more money to give to veterans.

ccording to Rothbard, the corruption of the right began in the ten years after the end of the Second World War. Before then, a strong movement of journalists, writers, and even politicians had formed during the New Deal and after. There was a burgeoning literature to explain why New Deal-style central planning was bad for American liberty. They also saw that central planning and war were linked as two socialistic programs.

The experience of war was telling. Prices were controlled by central edict. Businesses were not free to buy and sell. Government spending went through the roof. The Fed's money machine ran constantly. The war was a continuation of the New Deal by others means. They learned that a president dictatorial enough to manipulate the country into war would think nothing of ending liberty at home.

There were wonderful intellectuals in this movement: Frank Chodorov, John T. Flynn, Garet Garrett, Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, and dozens of others. This movement didn't want to conserve anything but liberty. They wanted to overthrow the alien regime that had taken hold of the country and restore respect for the Constitution. They believed in the free market as a creative mechanism to improve society. They favored a restoration of the gold standard, decentralized government, and peace and friendship with all nations (as George Washington wanted).

Murray Rothbard recounts all this, and then enters into the picture. He was a central player in the unfolding events. As a young man, he first encountered the new generation of people on the right who departed dramatically from the old. They were the first "neoconservatives." They favored war as a means. They were soft on executive dictatorship. They considered economics rather trivial compared with the struggle against international foes.

They found new uses for the state in the domestic realm as well. They like the CIA, the FBI, and no amount of military spending was enough for them. A leader of the movement—William F. Buckley—even called for a "totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores" so long as Russia, which had been an alley in the war, had a communist system.

This transformation was formative for Rothbard. He began an intellectual journey that would lead to a break from the movement that was now calling itself conservative. He studied with Ludwig von Mises during and after his graduate school years. He wrote a seminal book on economics. He wrote at a fevered pace for the popular press. By 1965, he found that he was pretty much alone in carrying on the Old Right vision. Most everyone else had died or had entered into that long trajectory that would lead to George Bush.

As Thomas Woods writes in the introduction, "It is not just a history of the Old Right, or of the anti-interventionist tradition in America. It is the story—at least in part—of Rothbard's own political and intellectual development: the books he read, the people he met, the friends he made, the organizations he joined, and so much more."

Night Strike wrote:Why should any upward cost of living adjustment (that are never adjusted down, fyi) for anyone getting money from the government be automatic when those same adjustments aren't automatic for private sector employees, especially in a down economy?

So you don't believe that the US Government should stand by the promises they make to military veterans? That'd make a hell of a recruiting slogan.

It's easy to make a ton of promises based in the future when you know you don't have to be around to carry them out. And like I have said, military veterans should be the only group the federal government should be providing long-term benefits to. I say cut long-term welfare payments so we know there will be enough/more money to give to veterans.

Why is it so difficult for you to just say "Senator Murray is wrong on this one"? I mean, you would clearly seem to believe that she (fixed!) is. Why must you reflexively support anything done by a Republican, even when you disagree with them?

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

Awww, normally I'd agree with you, but I thought that it was pretty relevant to his character because Allen West is part of the Republican War on Women.

Allen West wrote:“We need you to come in and lock shields to strengthen up the men that will go into the fight for you. To let these other women know, on the other side, these Planned Parenthood women, the Code Pink women, and all of these women who have been neutering American men and bringing us to the point of this incredible weakness, to let them know that we are not going to have our men become subservient.”

Now his own wife can't even negotiate what deviant sex acts he does to her body.

By the way, you should post the ad where Allen West received his deployment orders and was preparing his troops for that deployment on the same night his opponent was arrested for disorderly conduct in a bar.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Awww, normally I'd agree with you, but I thought that it was pretty relevant to his character because Allen West is part of the Republican War on Women.

Allen West wrote:“We need you to come in and lock shields to strengthen up the men that will go into the fight for you. To let these other women know, on the other side, these Planned Parenthood women, the Code Pink women, and all of these women who have been neutering American men and bringing us to the point of this incredible weakness, to let them know that we are not going to have our men become subservient.”

Now his own wife can't even negotiate what deviant sex acts he does to her body.

She can leave. That's a valid part of any negotiation.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

By the way, you should post the ad where Allen West received his deployment orders and was preparing his troops for that deployment on the same night his opponent was arrested for disorderly conduct in a bar.

Completely and utterly irrelevant.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

“Sending millionaires unemployment checks is a case study in out-of-control spending,” U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, said in an e-mail. “Providing welfare to the wealthy undermines the program for those who need it most while burdening future generations with senseless debt.”

I felt that the best way to ‘honor’ Ms. Bachmann’s visit was to make a contribution to your campaign. Even though I do not vote in Minnesota, please do everything in your power to take away this evil woman’s soapbox.

The Graves campaign told the Chicago Tribune that it experienced a 400 percent growth in donations from the Chicago area last week, although it’s unclear to what extent the Synagogue attendees are responsible for this.

john9blue wrote:you know juan, i agree with most of your criticisms against the republican party, but it's the fact that you think democrats are so much different that makes you a deluded fool IMO

you criticize millionaires for receiving welfare... and yet the democratic party supports the expansion of welfare. wut??

you just hate rich people. you realize that being rich usually means people greatly value your contributions to society, right?

I agree with you that it's dumb for millionaires to receive welfare and that expansion of welfare into that direction is stupid. Yet, "expansion of welfare" does not at all necessarily mean that it's expanding in that direction.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

thegreekdog wrote:So what should be the cut-off in salary for people to receive unemployment benefits?

I couldn't really answer that, to be honest. I'm simply not knowledgeable enough. But it seems to me that it would certainly be somewhere below "millionaire".

Is the designation "millionaire" determined with reference to salary (before the person is unemployed) or net worth?

The reason I'm asking these questions is that, thus far in this thread, unemployment compensation is being viewed as a form of welfare. And I suppose it is. But it's a little different, I think, than how I think it's being characterized in this thread.

Unemployment comepnsation is funded by companies who have employees through federal and state unemployment taxes. This is not something where you (Woodruff) are paying taxes that go to millionaires for unemployment. Companies that employ people are paying a percentage of what they pay people to the unemployment funds so that if and when those people are unemployed, the government can pay out of the unemployment fund. It is more like employer-paid social security than anything else.

thegreekdog wrote:So what should be the cut-off in salary for people to receive unemployment benefits?

I couldn't really answer that, to be honest. I'm simply not knowledgeable enough. But it seems to me that it would certainly be somewhere below "millionaire".

Is the designation "millionaire" determined with reference to salary (before the person is unemployed) or net worth?

A valid question.

Because if you make a million and spend 970,000, you're pretty well fucked if you lose your job. If we don't expect someone making $90,000 to start selling assets to pay for unemployment, I'm not sure we can treat millionaires differently. Or maybe we can.

... Proof enough though that you cannot lump Tea Party members in one basket. I am hard-core conservative, avid Tea Part activist, and I am in total agreement with you that this man's position is a travesty.